Slashdot Mirror


Mixing the Unmixable

markthebrewer writes "From an article in the New Scientist: Conventional wisdom every 15 year-old knows says that you can't mix oil and water without some kind of surfactant. However a team lead by Richard Pashley from the Australian National University in Canberra have done it simply by first removing all dissolved gases from the water. Apart from the obvious potential improvements in salad dressings, it could have an impact on the manufacture of everything from drugs to paint - anywhere an emulsion is required. Apparently, it will also give some insight into the mysterious 'long-range hydrophobic effect' (or why oil droplets coalesce over surprisingly long distances)." Keep in mind the usual scientific caveat: this experiment doesn't seem to have been replicated by other experimenters yet.

60 of 254 comments (clear)

  1. not real science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Keep in mind the usual scientific caveat: this experiment doesn't seem to have been replicated by other experimenters yet.
    AKA: "Uh, guys, some soap fell into the bottle but let's pretend there isn't any and call it science!"

  2. Excuse me... by Some+Woman · · Score: 4, Funny

    But where are these 15-year olds who know what a surfactant is? :)

    --
    My dingo ate your honor student.
    1. Re:Excuse me... by willll · · Score: 2, Insightful

      well now that i read the link i no what a surfactant is. and i'm 15. so, here i am.

    2. Re:Excuse me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "i read the link i no what a surfactant is"

      i "no"?

      Geeze

    3. Re:Excuse me... by antis0c · · Score: 4, Informative

      Other people might know it as an emulsifier.

      --

      ..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
    4. Re:Excuse me... by wwest4 · · Score: 3, Funny

      ha ha - you must be pretty old if you think 15 year-olds remember the smurfs.

    5. Re:Excuse me... by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 5, Funny

      But where are these 15-year olds who know what a surfactant is? :)

      Every single one. What did you do to wash the vasoline off your hands?

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    6. Re:Excuse me... by Thud457 · · Score: 2, Funny
      "On an OT note...I ran out to pick up some rice and found Zebra brand basmati rice, which is:
      • ISO 9002 certified (How? Perhaps the company is compliant, but why is this on the bag?)
      • ANSI-RAB-QMS Accredited (Again, how does this apply to the rice?)
      • Exported by DATA CORPORATION of Pakistan (ah, ok, so the rice is a Data product..., I'm still confused..
      "

      Obviously you've intercepted a packet of bits from the Al-Queda internet! You'd better return it to the store and hope they don't notice that you took it!

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    7. Re:Excuse me... by TGK · · Score: 4, Funny

      no way dood lol thats the new im chat english :):):) i luv riting like this!!!!! i do this 4 all my schol papers n like get like a's n stuff. im so cool!!! u just wish u were as cool as me!!! :):):)

      I'm married to a teacher. I see papers like that go across her desk. She relishes giving them Zeros. -=I=- relish seeing them get Zeros. It's gut wrenching that we're creating a generation that prides itself on its stupidity.

      Before you go off on me, no I didn't spell check this. Spelling Nazis cease and desist. I know I'm a worthless clod who can't spell hippopotomu... hipopto... ah fuck it

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    8. Re:Excuse me... by cornjchob · · Score: 2, Funny

      What did you do to wash the vasoline off your hands?

      I didn't know magazine pages were surfactants!

      --
      We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.
    9. Re:Excuse me... by hydrofi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > It's gut wrenching that we're creating a generation that prides itself on its stupidity.

      You should read this article featured on /. lately. It gave me some thoughts about why teens are willing to be stupid.

    10. Re:Excuse me... by snake_dad · · Score: 2, Funny
      (Actually, I'm 16, so I don't count.)

      So, at what age do you learn to count over there? :)

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    11. Re:Excuse me... by The_K4 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh yeah. ...ok, so it was A LONG time ago, and I don't remember my chemisry that well. I do remember it being very fun to ignite the Hydrogen :P

  3. I wonder by antiprime · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What the environmental impact of water based oils will be.

    1. Re:I wonder by Dr.Enormous · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, off the top of my head, you'll probably have two competing effects (assuming this is real and the stuff stays emulsified when you pour it down the drain):
      1. Dissolved oils/other hydrophobic molecules will reach more areas. Which is bad.
      2. Dissolved oils will get diluted in the environment more, possibly to non-toxic levels. Which is good.

      Now, which of those would outweigh the other, who knows?

    2. Re:I wonder by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Funny
      What the environmental impact of water based oils will be.

      Hmm, maybe any of the following:

      Exxon-Valdez bottled water

      No mo' GoJo

      Vegetable oils that penetrate the skin and enter the blood stream (Lube your Heart with new STP Salad Dressing!)

      McD's marinates fries in tallow juice. (Ecch)

      Uncannily something related to CowboyNeal

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  4. Now I need ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 4, Funny
    to adjust my phrasing:

    It's like mixing oil and water, assuming that all of the dissolved gases haven't been removed from the water.

    Yeah, that rolls off the tongue.

  5. If they argue over the results, or the credit... by jo_ham · · Score: 2, Funny

    ..they'll have trouble pouring oil on troubled waters, it'll just mix in.

  6. Not replicated by other scientists? by macshune · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can we say Pons and Fleischmann salad dressings?

  7. how funny by choctawgh · · Score: 2, Funny

    Am I the only one that finds it funny that the first, most obvious benefit mentioned in the caption was food related? Salad dressing indeed ;)

  8. But how will I describe my bad relationships? by robb0995 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Yeah, we were like oil and water without a sulfacant!"

    1. Re:But how will I describe my bad relationships? by stratjakt · · Score: 4, Funny

      As pointed out in the article, your relationships would work if you removed all gas from your system before trying to mix sexes.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  9. A better headline: by Randolpho · · Score: 3, Funny

    Scientists mix oil and water.

    In other news, record sub-zero temperatures in hell.

    --
    "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
    -Marilyn Manson
  10. hydrophobic by sczimme · · Score: 3, Funny


    "He takes the air out and he doesn't get the long-range hydrophobic force. It doesn't nail the hydrophobic force down, but now we have something to work on," says James Quirk, a chemist at the University of Western Australia in Perth..."

    Hydrophobic, eh? So that's the reason they don't mix: the oil is afraid of the water. Neat.

    PS I wonder if the chemist's middle initial is T.

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
    1. Re:hydrophobic by Banjonardo · · Score: 2, Funny
      (Obvious James T. Quirk joke)

      My....God!

      But...it... can't.. mix...! Must...have...green....women....

      --

      -----

      Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton

  11. From the article... by Drunken_Jackass · · Score: 2, Funny

    Apparently they were able to pass both the oil and water through an new Irish web browser. The 4-fold increase in speed of all of the particles is what allowed the mixing.

    --
    There are 01 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and me.
  12. Of course!!!!! by Picass0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    >> "...simply by first removing all dissolved gases from the water."

    Ahhh, Once you remove all of the Hydrogen and Oxygen I can see where there would no longer be a problem!!!

    1. Re:Of course!!!!! by Drakonian · · Score: 2, Informative
      <dork mode> To be technically accurate, the gases aren't dissolved, they are covalently bonded. </dork mode>
      --
      Random is the New Order.
  13. Good Eats by esobofh · · Score: 5, Funny

    Great, hopefully Alton Brown can make a super mayonnaise emulsion based on this theory - super tasty and smooth on the tongue, now that's Good Eats!

    --

    ----------------------------
    Esobofh - Currently drinking fresh mango juice.
  14. I call BS by Namds · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This has got to be a dupe. Think of all of the biological effects that would be couteracted by this. Hydrophobic/hydrophilic effects are the basic reason why proteins fold the way that they do, and biological system's don't have free gasses floating around. Not to mention what would happen to all of our membranes (note, membrane formation is also due to hydophobic/hydophilic effects). Gasses in a biological system are all bound to something - example - Oxygen is bound to hemoglobin or myoglobin, if it isn't it causes serious problems. If water and oil mix without gasses present then we're in a world of hurt and I'd just be mush right now instead of typing this.

    1. Re:I call BS by FroBugg · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's a difference between gases in the air and dissolved gases. All the water that you deal with normally has dissolved gases. Dissolved oxygen in both fresh and sewater is how fish and other gilled creatures live. Dissolved nitrogen in our blood is responsible for decompression sickness among divers.

    2. Re:I call BS by kavau · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The focus here shouldn't be on the word gasses, but rather on impurities contained in the water. My impression is that they created the analogue of a supercooled gas: if you cool a gas very slowly and carefully below its condensation temperature, and there are no catalysts present, it may remain in a metastable gaseous phase. But as soon as it is disturbed (by the presence of impurities, for example) it will condense into a liquid state, which is the stable thermodynamic state at that temperature.

      The oil-water mixture is probably also a metastable state. In the presence of any catalysts (in this case dissolved gases; in the case of biological systems this function could be taken over by proteins, salt ions, I-don't-know-what-else...) the oil molecules would condense and clot together. Oil droplets are thermodynamically stable only above a certain droplet size; the same is true for water droplets in the case of the supercooled gas. Without catalysts, the critical droplet size cannot be achieved.

    3. Re:I call BS by paxil · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gasses in a biological system are all bound to something - example - Oxygen is bound to hemoglobin or myoglobin, if it isn't it causes serious problems.

      No.

      How do you suppose the O2 makes it way to the hemoglobin?

      Well, I'll tell you:
      the oxygen diffuses through the cell membranes of the alveoli, disolves in the liquid component of the blood, diffuses through the cell membrane of the Red Blood Cells, and binds to the hemoglobin.

      Of course, the oxygen bound to hemoglobin is in equilibrium with the oxygen disolved in the RBC's cytoplasim, which is in equilibrium with the oxygen disolved in the liquid component of blood. (I am simplifying, but you get the idea.)

      It may be biology, but it isn't black magic how this stuff works, the laws of physical chemistry must still be obeyed, there has to be an equilibrium between the phases.

      This aspect of blood is pretty well understood too:
      there is 0.03ml oxygen per liter of blood per mm Hg partial pressure of oxygen, or about 2.9ml oxygen disolved per litre of arterial blood, and 1.2ml of disolved oxygen per litre of venous blood. Breathing 100 percent oxygen will, of course, increase these numbers.

  15. techno? by misterhaan · · Score: 2, Funny

    yeah after reading just the headline i thought this was about music . . .

    --

    track7.org has all kinds of interesting stuff!

  16. WTF is going on here? by cryptochrome · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the article...

    An alternative might be to disperse the medicine in degassed water, which is already produced on a large scale by the oil industry.

    You're telling me the oil industry itself makes degassed water on a large scale - for some unmentioned reason - and didn't discover this researcher's claims that oil and degassed water spontaneously emulsify? What's up with that?

    --

    ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

    1. Re:WTF is going on here? by ifreakshow · · Score: 4, Funny

      They discovered it 20 years ago but immediately covered up the knowledge because it could be used to make cars that get 200 miles to the gallon and don't produce greenhouse gasses.

    2. Re:WTF is going on here? by lommer · · Score: 4, Informative

      "someoen ... mixed water with petrol and made his car 20 times more efficient."

      This has been done by drag racers for years, and as another poster mentioned, was even used in spitfires in WWII. The reason it works is the same principal as a steam engine: hot water -> steam, expanding dramatically in the process, thus providing more pressure on the piston. However, the high temperatures in an engine cause some of the water to be ripped apart into H2 and O2, at which point the H2 can recombine to form highly acidic compounds that corrode your engine and reduce its operating life many times over. That is why it is not commonly used unless super-high torque is required from an engine NOW and you don't care how long the engine lasts after that.

      Of course, there's still the other obvious problem of putting too much water in your gas...

    3. Re:WTF is going on here? by ianr44 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Big engines like what you are talking about inject water into the air intake, they don't mix it with gas. The water has a cooling effect which increases intake air density and power much like an intercooler on a turbocharged engine. Also, water helps prevent pinging (premature detonation) which allows higher compression ratios to be used, further increasing power output. So, the engines aren't doing anything especially interesting since they are only mixing gas vapor and water vapor.

  17. Urm.. Soap? by ChuckleBug · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's always been possible to mix oil and water with a little thing called SOAP. Or surfactant, to be more precise. Or detergent. You get my drift.

    It was once my job to figure out how to get oil out of wastewater, and it could be a really difficult problem. Oil/water emulsions are nothing new.

  18. Caveat Emptor... by VitrosChemistryAnaly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Be aware that the New Scientist is not a peer reviewed journal.

    The two guys who claimed that they produced cold fusion in a laboratory also didn't publish in a peer reviewed journal. It turns out they were full of crap. Just 'cause it's written doesn't make it so. Once it's in a peer reviewed journal, I'll seriously be interested (chemistry news on /., is that usual?).

    Anyway, the New Scientist is well known for its overhyping of science.

    --
    "It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
  19. What's Next?! by Kenshin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Cats and dogs living togther?!

    --

    Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    1. Re:What's Next?! by Bill+Currie · · Score: 2, Funny

      And after that, giant marshmellow sailors.

      --

      Bill - aka taniwha
      --
      Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak

  20. Re:hmm by Planesdragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Salad dressings.... I don't know about you, but I would never trust chemically engineered food. Don't eat anything that you can't make at home!!!!!!!! That includes chicken with no heads...:P

    Hmm....

    * Can't butcher in the city of Albany
    * Can't make bread in my crappy apartment
    * Can't grow vegitables
    * No idea how to make Tofu

    So, er... what can we eat? (And why, exactly, should a species that can eat anything from carrion to dirt to dried meat worry about the genetics of its food? Unless the bugger's toxic, mutative, or just bad tasing I see no problem in eating it.)

  21. french dressing by frovingslosh · · Score: 3, Funny
    French dressing

    The effect prevents oil's dispersion in water, and means that you can only make oil and water emulsions, such as French dressing for salads, by shaking them and adding stabilising agents. ?

    Second of all, the oil/water thing is more of an Italian dressing, I believe; and First of all, we don't call it french dressing any more, we call it Freedom Dressing.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  22. Confusing title.... by hrieke · · Score: 2, Funny

    Whew!
    I thought it was about Bill Gates and RMS having a love child together.

    --
    III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIIIV IIVIIIIIIVIII...
  23. You are correct by mrfunnypants · · Score: 2, Informative

    What evidence do you have that gases are not dissolved in our body fluids?

    Correct to the contrary it is well known that dissovled gases are in our blood stream. This is partly how CO2 travels, indeed a small percentage but still occurs.

    --
    "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" -Confucius
  24. Stoopid question ... by DogIsMyCoprocessor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    how exactly is "mixing" defined? If I put olive oil and tap water in my blender, and crank it on high, it is pretty well mixed, at least temporarily. Is it critical that the "mixture" stay "mixed" over time?

    --

    "And this is my boy, Sherman. Speak, Sherman." "Hello." "Good boy."

    1. Re:Stoopid question ... by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are many products where oil-based and water-based things need to be mixed together and where it would be a bad thing if they separated. You have probably seen the phrase "such-and-such used as an emulsifier" (sp?) on the ingredients of some food-products.

      Real-world example of wanting something to stay mixed: Paint

      Have you ever opened a can of paint that's been sitting around in your basememt or garage for a few years? Some of the resinous compounds separate from the base materials the same way that the Olive Oil in your blender will eventually rise to the top again once you turn it off. Paint is more viscous and is not simply oil and water, but the same forces are in play.

      The end result is that there is certainly commercial need for things to stay mixed together over longer times.

      --

      The Digital Sorceress
  25. More reading for the curious by tonyhill · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's the link to the actual journal his article was published in, for the curious.

    From the article, it would be a stretch to say that Pashley has found a way to overcome "long-range" hydrophobic effects. Those effects are still present. However, he has found a way to get the hydrophobic liquid to break away in small droplets. Once broken away from the bulk, standard DLVO theory takes over to keep the particles apart. DLVO is not a cancelation of hydrophobic effects, it is just an overpowering of hydrophobic effects by electrostatic effects.

    Unfortunately, it seems as though Pashley has no good explanation for why the degassing method works, it just does. This could be interesting, as more researchers study the role of gasses in keeping hydrophobic and hydrophilic liquids apart.

    Overall, quite interesting, though New Scientist does tend to exagerate scientific findings.
    Tony

  26. Re:whats so mysterious about this?? by Dr.Enormous · · Score: 3, Informative

    The question is not "why doesn't oil dissolve in water?" The answer to that is obvious; water attracts other water molecules significantly better than it does oil, so it tends to exclude the oil. However, the effects of simple water-oil vs water-water interactions are only visible over a very short range.

    The problem here, as far as I understand it, is that if you put two small droplets of oil far away from each other on a water surface, they'll tend to meet up sooner than you would expect just from random movement. There's nothing obvious from orgo that says why that should happen.

  27. Energy Companies by ruvreve · · Score: 2, Funny
    An alternative might be to disperse the medicine in degassed water, which is already produced on a large scale by the oil industry.

    If the oil industry uses this on a large scale it would seem that accidents would have happened where the oil came into contact with this degassed water. Those damn energy companies have known all along.....OIL AND WATER DO MIX!

  28. As a chemist... by smoondog · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think the /. article is a little misleading. After scanning the JPhysChem B article here (You may need to have a license). The articles suggest that removing dissolved gasses allows you to mix oil and water indefinately. I'm pretty sure that this is not true.

    They are adding 2 ml of oil and 33 mils of water and after mixing they still have some oil phase (from the picture in the paper). They are reporting an increase in the solubility, not that oil and water in these conditions are completely miscible as implied by the /. article.

    As for my questions, I'm not sure I understand their results with respect to the observation that re-exposure to air doesn't immediately reverse the effect. This sort of raises a red flag to me, because (assuming there isn't any covalent chemistry going on) it means that achieving equilibrium is rather slow, and it may be that they are not at equilibrium when the measurements are made. Either way it is an interesting paper. (This would be better phrased as a question than a statement, I might have just missed the answer in the paper....)

    -Sean

  29. Already been done? by kaltkalt · · Score: 2, Informative
    --

    Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
  30. Re:Good for Soda by PCM2 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This would be good for soda, such as Code Red, which contains Brominated Vegetable Oil, a chemical on the FDA's watch list as a potentially poisonous compound.
    So you're saying this discovery would let them add more brominated vegetable oil to the soda, thus killing you quicker?

    Geeks note: Brominated vegetable oil is also an ingredient in Mountain Dew, and probably other of your favorite flavors of synthi-caff.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  31. Deep in the lab ... by YetAnotherName · · Score: 3, Funny

    Scientist: I've done it. I've DONE IT! Two parts gin ... one part vermouth ... and an olive. They MIX! Mwuahahaha!

    Grad student: Uh, that's just a martini, and not a very dry one.

    Scientist: Blast! Well, bottom's up. We'll just change gin to "oil" and vermouth to "water" and publish anyway.

  32. Hmmm...... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You folks are missing the key point in the article:

    "The mix spontaneously formed a cloudy emulsion".

    This is very different from the usual case where you take an oil and water mix and maybe some surfactant and agitate it.

    The reason is that the formation of surface area during the dispersion of oil into water normally requires an energy input. Surfactant reduces the energy required and also often stabilizes an emulsion by adding some repulsive forces (either steric or electrostatic) between the droplets. However, with the exception of systems called microemulsions that increased surface area always represents a energy increase. With time (the amount of time depending on the use of suractant etc.) that free energy will cause the emulsion to break and form two homogeneous layers.

    Microemulsions are the exeception; they are unusually favorable systems that reduce the energy of formation of surface area to near zero, probably less than the thermal energy kT available. Thus they can spontaneously form emulsions that are stable indefinitely. Microemulsions generally require very specific compositions to form so they are not often seen except in some specialized applications.

    The problem with Pashley's work is that he is claiming the spontaneous formation of an emulsion.. This would normally be expected only if the surface energy of his mixture was near zero - and there is nothing in the description of this system to indicate that this is happening, regardless of the side show with air bubbles.

    What is more likely is that his oil-water system actually contains some small amount of surfactant as an impurity (quite typical in many oils). If so, the process of lowering temperature will take this mixture through what is known as the phase inversion temperature, where the mixture will achieve a minimum surface tension. This lowered usrface tension will make formation of an emulsion with minimal energy input quite likely.

  33. I could not repeat it by Morgoth_Bauglir · · Score: 3, Interesting

    methodology: I boiled a cup of water in the microwave. I waited for it to cool, and boiled it again. I let it cool and boiled it again. I carefully removed the cup and let a few drops of (extra virgin olive) oil drip onto the surface from about 1cm height to minimize air bubbles.

    observations: the oil stayed in a tight slick on the surface for about 10 seconds. Then it spread out, I'm assuming because of the heat of the water.

    After a about 45s, a piece of wood was introduced to the water, which caused mild boiling suggesting that the water had indeed been devoid of air.

    After more than 30 mnutes, the slick was still on the surface without mixing.

    Conclusions: those guys are need to accumulate more data.

  34. As a biochemist... by chloroquine · · Score: 2, Funny
    Well, we've got a nice tank of helium here so we can degas the solutions we put into our chromatography setup. I'm tempted to actually try this out with some ddH2O and a little immersion oil.

    Do you think that NIH knows that it funds this kind of late night experiments?

    (I might have to make a few latex glove helium balloons too)

  35. Wrong word by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2, Interesting
    And it's not unmixable, it's immiscible.

    Bruce

    1. Re:Wrong word by cyrek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you're going to be picky, the words mixable and miscible are both derived from the Latin miscere. The different spellings have yet to to diverge in meaning, so they mean the same thing.

      <dig> The only reason 'mixable' isn't in the accepted jargon-set is that it isn't confusing to non-scientists. ;-) </dig>

      --
      Insert witty sig about inserting witty sig here, here.